W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: XLink 1.1: "URI reference" "checking"

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:41:30 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <871wyxit7p.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| * Norman Walsh wrote:
|>/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
|>| Dear XML Core Working Group,
|>|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ section 5.4 notes
|>| "Because it is impractical for any application to check that a value is
|>| a URI reference, this specification follows the lead of [IETF RFC 3986]
|>| in this matter and imposes no such conformance testing requirement on
|>| XLink applications." Please include specific reference to the section of
|>| RFC 3986 that proposes this, and include a note why it is "impractical"
|>| to perform such a check.
|>This text used to refere to RFC 2396. On examination, we agree that it is
|>not correct as currently specified with a reference to RFC 3986. We have
|>no plans to impose a new requirement (checking the syntax of URIs) on
|>implementations, but we will changes this text to a simple note which
|>states that such checking is not required.
| So, if it's not impractical, why is it not required?

Because XLink 1.0 does not impose the requirement and we are not
chartered to add such a new requirement to XLink 1.1. I also note that
I don't know of any specifications that do impose this requirement,
not even XML Schema.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 14:42:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:25 UTC